tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-147356882024-03-07T18:26:51.587-08:00Slipping Through LifeA collection of thoughts, ramblings, postulations, warnings, mostly directed towards the future of our world, in various ways.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14735688.post-38951037472462023872008-09-17T08:35:00.001-07:002008-09-17T11:34:18.075-07:00Regulation Shmegulation<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">In light of the never-ending riptide of financial institutions that have collapsed in the last ~12 months, many people in high places are asking themselves what to do. Some are blaming the people of the United States. Some are leveling their criticism at the government regulators. Should we buy out the debt of these troubled institutions? Some Presidential candidates have done a nice switcheroo, claiming at first that, "We must not bail out the management and speculators who created this mess. They had months of warnings following the Bear Stearns debacle, and they failed to act," and then following up today with a gentle, "The government was forced to commit $85 billion...there are literally millions of people whose retirement, whose investment, whose insurance were at risk here." Uh-huh<br /><br />But, no one seems to want to say that these sort of industries need more regulation. Sarah Palin says, "This crisis happened for several reasons... our regulatory system is out-dated and needs a complete overhaul... John McCain and I are going to put an end to the mismanagement and the abuses in Washington and on Wall Street... we're going to reform the way Wall Street does business... and we will get government out of the way of private sector progress." This is the text from one speech in Colorado. Now, are we going to reform the regulation processes, or get government out of business? Which is it Sarah?<br /><br />This post is not to criticize the Republican candidates or to point out the inconsistencies in their responses. That's just a bonus feature of the writing today. This is to highlight the need for oversight in industries like this. Free-market capitalism gives private entities the ability and the freedom to conduct business in any way they see fit. This is one of capitalism's greatest strengths, it enables a large amount of production and innovation. But capitalism, as a pure economic concept, does not allow for many protections for other areas of the social network. Capitalism does not implicitly recognize the need for labor protection, environmental regulation, insurance, etc. Capitalism's job is to make money, which is does with great efficiency. It is the government's job to regulate capitalism to ensure that the people, the land, and the society upon which capitalism draws its resources is protected. <br /><br />The breakdown of these financial markets is a good example of government not doing its job. Capitalism, in the guise of these lending houses and banking firms, developed a method through which they could lend money to less-than-ideal candidates. In order to lessen their own responsibility, they created a market to buy, sell, and trade this mortgage debt with other firms. And when the loans started coming back as default, they all realize that none of them had the money to cope with the fall-out. The government's responsibility is to ensure this stability, to keep these sort of dubious markets from materializing in the first place. The government failed in its job here, and now there is a major shakedown of the entire financial world due to the huge debt loads which are now coming due. The answer to this is not to "get </span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">government out of the way of private sector progress," but to reasonably and rationally utilize the government's powers of oversight to maintain an equitable and prosperous economy and society. This is the key step that some candidates are missing. <br /></span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com20tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14735688.post-59424830185014682172007-11-07T10:18:00.000-08:002007-11-07T11:27:00.026-08:00Slipping Stances on World Oppressors<span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"><blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;">"<span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world. ... </span></span><span style="font-size:85%;">All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you." - GW Bush, <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/01/20050120-1.html">2nd inaugural address, Jan 2005</a></span></blockquote>What words of hope he spoke back then. Standing with the oppressed. Of course, he was referring to our imminent success in Iraq, our "mission accomplished" in helping the Iraqis stand against their oppressor Saddam Hussein. However, these days our stance seems more like the Texas two-step than a strong mission statement. <br /><br />A lot of words has been exchanged about the recent turmoil in Pakistan. For those who might not know yet what is going on, I'll give you a quick recap: Faced with a promise he made of giving up his military post, and of Presidential elections in which most polls declared he'd be wiped out by opposition parties, "President" Pervez Musharraf has couped against his own presidency, declaring marshal law, dissolving the Constitution, placing several members of the Supreme Court under house arrest when they refused to go along with him, and jailing thousands of lawyers and other protesters for demonstrating against him. Oh, and he is silencing major independent news organizations. <br /><br />The worst part of all this is the international community is doing nothing than muttering under its breath about the situation. Especially in the United States, where this administration has made a world-wide campaign against those who might use tyranny to further injustice and terror. We have invoked sanctions or traded harsh words with several nations who we consider to be conducting activities we deem anti-democratic. For examples, see Venezuela, Cuba, Myanmar, North Korea, and Iran. In all those places, we have tried to bring our pro-democracy rhetoric to bear with some force, usually economic, to try and effect changes in how they do business with their own people. <br /><br />However, now, when one of our "most important non-NATO" allies goes and shreds any hope of democratic reform, we sit idly by. We have even made excuses for General Musharraf's actions (as he is acting more a general than a president). "Oh, he has the bomb... we don't want to antagonize him" ... "Well, he's still fighting the war on terror for us, we don't want to disrupt him" ... "if he goes, Pakistan will only have anarchy and could fall into the hands of extremists." All of these are practically bullshit. <br /><br />** Bomb - yes, Pakistan has the bomb. However, we have not shrunk from admonishing other nations with fully-fledged nuclear capabilities (China, North Korea). It is even more dangerous because Pakistan's nuclear engineers were responsible for helping North Korea develop it's own arsenal. This should be even more of a reason why the army should not be in control all the time ... they clearly do not have the mental or moral capacity to determine when to hold onto to their state secrets. <br />**Terror - Pakistan has made few contributions to the war on terror recently, and indeed seems to be taking some steps backwards. The same day he swept democratic precepts aside, Musharraf also released 28 Taliban prisoners in a prisoner-soldier swap with militants on his border. Some of those included bomb makers and transporters. Where are they headed now? Not to protest with the lawyers; they're most likely headed over the border into Afghanistan, where the Taliban is on a rebound and has posted several new leads this year, pushing close to Khandahar and other cities as they struggle to regain their grip on the country. And Pakistan's army is not fighting them. Not to mention how thousands have been called from the front line to fight and arrest the protesters, as if these people are the most dangerous threat to the country's future.<br />**Anarchy - This whole charade was well-timed to offset the elections and Supreme Court decisions, all of which were suspected to go against Musharraf. In a <a href="http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/Pakistan%20Poll%20Report.pdf">poll by Terror Free Tomorrow</a>, Musharraf has a lower approval rating than recently-returned oppsition leader Benazir Bhutto (38% to 63%). It is widely believed that her party would sweep Musharraf from office in the elections (which have now been postponed indefinitely), and she has signaled support for the United States as a part of her moderate stance. <br /><br />None of the arguments hold water. </span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">The end result is that we are supporting some modicum of short-term stability for democracy, </span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">lending credence to a dictator who is actively oppressing his people rather than step in and try to aid the people of Pakistan, in some way, with their struggle. It seems strange, as we have taken much effort to try to establish democracy in other portions of the world. Indeed, with hundreds of billions of dollars flowing into Iraq, trying to prop up a democracy and create a "model state" in the Middle East. If we value stability over democracy, why depose Saddam in the first place? He was very stable, we were keeping an eye on him so he was pretty pinned down (still no WMDs found), and was not in league with the Taliban, Iran, or other terrorist groups. Yet we brought him down to promote democracy. Cuba has been stable to the rest of the world for decades. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/washington/25assess.html?_r=1&em&ex=1193457600&en=fc676aa8dc9169d8&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin">Yet just last month President Bush stood beside Cuban exiles and railed against Cuba's denying of freedom to its people.</a><br /><br />I am not urging we march into Pakistan as we did Baghdad. For one, we do not have the military means or public support to initiate such an endeavor. Also, perhaps Iraq has taught us that military force is not always the best way to effect "regime change" in a country. However, to let Pakistan stumble down this road without demonstrating that we will not stand for this type of behavior, even from our allies, is unconscionable. When 53% of Pakistanis believe that one of their top priorities as a nation is "Free elections, free press, and an independent judiciary" we should pay attention. When only 18% approve of suicide bombings, we should realize this is a society not filled with radicals, yet, but rational people who desire the means and ways to make their life better in the future, for them and their children. However, our image is tarnished there, whether beyond hope is debatable. How might things change if we were to help promote democracy in a peaceful way? One that is not seen as militaristic, or anti-Islamic, but moderate, accepting, progressive yet understanding? It is a tall order, but don't we owe it to our credibility in the region, nay across the world as a country whose defining purpose is to promote democracy, as it is the surest way to repeal terror and oppression around the world?<br /><br />Consider also this hypothetical future: 53% of people disapproved of Musharraf even before this weekend's shenanigans. If he retains power, under the auspices of fighting terror and keeping stability, it is altogether possible that those young people who he claims to be protecting will only be further marginalized by his draconian measures. When free press and free courts do not offer people a legitimate avenue to redress their concerns with the government and each other, where will they turn? Madrassas, sharia law, militants, tribal organizations that can help give them what the "stable" government of Pakistan can not. Do you doubt this? Consider what happened when the Shah of Iran lost touch with his people, and used all means necessary to stay in power after he was returned to office in 1953. Where did the people turn, but to a small religious leader named Ruhulla Khomeini? And how did that example turn out, and how did it effect our world in terms of security, human rights, terrorism? Would we really want to sandwich Afghanistan between two of the same? Do we really want another Iran, this time with already developed nuclear capabilities? <br /><br />To end this, I'll leave with another quote, used by GW Bush in his inaugural address, but also resonating into this conflict: </span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"></span><blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"></span></span></blockquote><blockquote><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">"Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it."</span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"> --Abraham Lincoln, from the April 6, 1859 letter to Henry Pierce<br /></span></span></blockquote><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">After those who deny freedom are no longer in power, how will what we have done (or not done) while they were in control affect what happens when they no longer retain it?<br /></span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14735688.post-55855214910604026762007-10-26T08:49:00.001-07:002007-10-26T10:28:00.734-07:00Wow, what a great thing sanctions are<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">I'm so glad that we have perfected the use of sanctions to help further democracy in the world. It really has worked out so well for us so far. We were able to put the squeeze on the communist regime in Cuba, forcing them to overthrow their government and become a truly democratic society. We are well on our way to pressure Iran to stop enriching Uranium and being a jerk to the rest of the region. This is quite a useful tool, we should think of deploying it more often.<br /><br />In reality though, I can't believe what I am reading about everything these days. Sanctions, especially the unilateral sanctions that we tend to prefer, have proven over the last five decades to do nothing in terms of actually forcing change. And yet our government, whether Republican or Democrat, seems oblivious to that fact.<br /><br />Two recent examples from the news further this reality. Recently, President Bush met with a room half of Latin American diplomats, and half Cuban exiles. His speech was directed at the transfer of power in Cuba, and the President expressed concern that the people take this opportunity to shed the government that has controlled their destinies for the last half century. Mr. Bush also took the time to re-iterate the U.S.'s stance that the travel and trade embargoes on the island nation will continue until such a time as the country returns to a democratic state. These embargoes have worked wonderfully so far, haven't they? Really brought Cuba to see the error of their ways, didn't it?<br /><br />Actually, the United States is a victim of its own policy, making us impotent as well as a <a href="http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2006w24/msg00015.htm">hypocrite to boot</a>. Since 2001, after a visit to the island nation by Hurricane Michelle, the United States authorized the sale of food and medical supplies to Cuba, in the pretense of humanitarian relief. The supplies could only be purchased "cash-only," as if that made a difference. Since then, the US has become one of <a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107443.html">Cuba's top 10 trading partners</a>, racking up millions of dollars in trade with the verboden country. This has also aroused the ire of our allies, especially Canada, in relation to free trade, but that is a topic for another time.<br /><br />Of course, the Cuban exile portion of the room leapt into an ovation, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/washington/25assess.html?em&ex=1193457600&en=fc676aa8dc9169d8&ei=5087%0A">according to the New York Times</a>. The diplomats remained silent, probably thinking of the rhetoric that was spewing forth and how they've heard this sort of speech before, only with regard to the leaders of the Middle East. It wasn't going to fly.<br /><br />Indeed, this administration has stepped up the "sanction and embargo" theme in the volatile Middle East, this week condemning Iran and levying sanctions against the Qud Guards and several Iranian banking institutions, which Mr. Bush designated as sponsors of terrorism. Despite the fact that there have been sanctions imposed on the region since the 1979 uprising. Despite the fact that the Guards, and Iran, still does major business daily across the globe, in full flaunt of whatever we say against it.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/26/washington/26assess.html?_r=1&ref=world&oref=slogin">The message we should be learning from all this is that unilateral sanctions do nothing anymore.</a> Iran is in business with countries who will gladly fill any void left by the United States, especially considering Iran's vast petrochemical wealth. China, Russia, and the EU are just some of the international groups willing to deal with Iran in order to continue global economic growth. Nothing the US can say or threaten will cease that. Globalism has undermined these sorts of efforts before. Cuba did business with Russia, Canada, and the EU (and now the US as well, behind our own backs) for decades under a US "embargo". <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15634914">The Sudan, another black-listed country</a>, has also turned elsewhere for economic investment, finding plenty of suitors who want to work with their own oil reserves. The list goes on.<br /><br />The only way sanctions can work is if it is a concerted effort by the major economic powers of the world (the US, EU, China, India, Russia, and Canada) to really bring the pressure to bear on these nations. Unilateralism went out the window when globalism opened the floodgates. We no longer control the majority of trade and money flow in the world; if a country cannot do business with us, it can find other lucrative partners more than willing to turn a blind eye to whatever humanitarian, environmental, or political atrocity might be going on inside in order to further their own domestic economic agenda. If we continue to go it alone in this effort, we only end up looking ineffective and out of touch with reality, as the rest of the world sits silently during out tirade, then cleans up financially in the aftermath. Better international diplomacy, and a good dose of the real world and its new global structure, would greatly be</span><a href="javascript:void(0)" tabindex="10" onclick="return false;"><span></span></a><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">nefit any pipe dreams we may harbor to affect real change in the world via economic pressures. Until then, the audience is holding its breath.<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14735688.post-2968029249077343932007-10-22T18:54:00.000-07:002007-10-22T20:11:42.733-07:00Major Mayer Muddle<span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"> John Mayer, the singer-songwriter who is improbably famous, released a song last year which, upon my hearing (I don't keep up 100% with recent pop music), strikes me as horribly wrong for someone with so much influence on the general public. His song is "Waiting on the world to change," and has lyrics that advocate, in my mind, lazing around and idly hoping that everything will get better.<br /><br /></span><div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">Now we see everything that's going wrong</span><br /><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">With the world and those who lead it</span><br /><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">We just feel like we don't <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">have</span> the means</span><br /><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">To rise above and beat it</span><br /><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">....</span><br /><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">It's not that we don't care,</span><br /><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">We just know that the fight ain't fair</span><br /><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">So we keep on waiting</span><br /><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">Waiting on the world to change</span></span><br /><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"></span></div><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"><br />These lyrics are <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">ridiculous</span>. It will never be easy to change the world. Change is hard, it is difficult. It comes in small leaps and bounds, often with gross steps backwards. All good fights have been like that. The fight for racial equality, which is still going on, has been a veritable roller coaster of achievements and setbacks. The environment, poverty, Vietnam war protests ... nearly every progressive movement in society is on the backs of the hard working people making <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">minuscule</span> additions to the fight.<br /><br />To say that it is too hard, or that that fight isn't fair, is simply preposterous. No fight is fair, nothing is easy if you want it done right and are fighting against a tide, which every good innovation in our society has done or is trying to do. <br /><br />And for Mayer to claim that is too easy is bullshit. For him to be a role model for the younger segments of our population, and to tell them just to sit back and wait until things change, is ludicrous. Then it'll never happen! If everyone simply "waits for the world to change" then the world will never change! What if Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had said, "well, we'd like equality, but it's really an uphill battle, so I'm gonna sit back and wait for the world to change." Where would we be? <br /><br />It's repugnant that Mayer would put this song into circulation. </span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">When you're a celebrity you have a responsibility to inspire, to challenge, to move forward. Not to advocate apathy and stagnation. <br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">[Thanks to Anne for bringing this song to my attention]</span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14735688.post-47158487370841842172007-10-21T19:39:00.000-07:002007-10-21T20:02:09.874-07:00Food for thought<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">I have recently had the opportunity to read the new book by Alan Weisman, entitled <span style="font-style: italic;">The World Without Us</span>. The book is both an intriguing thought-exercise as well as a subtle warning, and is definitely worth the read.<br /></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Weisman ponders the question of what the world would do, would look like, if humans magically disappeared tomorrow? Everything left intact as it stands right now (no nuclear holocaust or such removal) and no more degradation of the environment than we've already started (so not in 100 years with rampant global warming). He just examines how the natural world would respond to our absence. From flooding of New York subways to the destruction of our cherished monuments (and the perseverance of some others), he looks at the world in our wake. </span><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0WTZM-Rbtt3-cmTi1QDnVzu9TNNC_WsygbWuI1nbMJHX3epg8CktEb1ocL0zsqxxW1F9Qo2d7-ca6UesH1iEBrFtm-vu8dnKObLjnNjGHcqeyN3AW_NcPbsvnxqSmqYTds3u2UQ/s1600-h/body_image_home.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0WTZM-Rbtt3-cmTi1QDnVzu9TNNC_WsygbWuI1nbMJHX3epg8CktEb1ocL0zsqxxW1F9Qo2d7-ca6UesH1iEBrFtm-vu8dnKObLjnNjGHcqeyN3AW_NcPbsvnxqSmqYTds3u2UQ/s320/body_image_home.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5123990688749267682" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><br />It is at times hopeful as to the restorative nature of, well, nature. Looking analytically at how nature responds to shifts beyond equilibrium (and the amount of human effort used in combating the encroaching wilderness on what we've already built). He seems to indicate that mother nature would eventually bulldoze our creations, even our great skyscrapers, and lay it all down in verdant growth.<br /><br />He goes on to discuss some of our creations which stand to remain the longest, and these stand as potent reminders of how our evolving technology can impact the environment long after it has left our conscious thought. Plastics, chemicals, radioactive waste, and global warming are all touched on in this human-less future.<br /><br />It is an engaging book, one that deserves mention for attention to readers. It's conflicting messages, of the resilience of nature, compounded with our own technological advances that nature has no answer to, leave you a bit flustered, but definitely thinking in new directions. I found myself wondering, as I drove past them on the way for some hiking, how long these farms, these car lots, these houses would last under the strain of nature. And also it helps to re-evaluate your impact on the planet. Weisman writes with a dis-arming natural flow, an inviting approach to the subject that is technical without being intimidating, informative without being boring. An enlightening and entertaining read, for sure.<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14735688.post-23234429920191999372007-09-30T10:35:00.000-07:002007-09-30T16:13:04.395-07:00Finally, Someone's Thinking<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"> It was slow in coming, very slow. The solution to the Iraq, problem, as I have stated previously, was in the partition of the country into various slices, mostly likely upon ethnic/sectarian lines. It is unfortunate that it should come to this, but keep in mind that the country borders of Iraq and much of the Middle East was constructed not by their own people, but by the colonial powers that contained power over the area at the early point of the 20th century. France and England were the principal participants, and when they were forced to give up power and return the land to the people of the region after WWI, they drew arbitrary lines and left it at that. They have a reputation of this, for the colonial powers did the same thing in Africa, which was one reason that led to the genocide in Rwanda so recently.<br /><br /> And, as it has been proven time and time again in the news and reports on the ground, the majority of the violence has been intra-sect homicide. These are three sets of people, with apparent intractable differences which prohibits them living together in one nation. There is nothing wrong with that; there are incompatible people all across the world. However, when forced to live under one flag, one border, conflicts can arise quickly. Can they ever get over this hatred? The optimist in me wants to say yes, but that is not easy or quick to achieve, and cannot be looked upon as a solution in the near future.<br /><br /> So, why divvy up the country? Well, the partition method also has some historical success. In Bosnia, when faced with factions that were at constant war and genocide, was broken into partitions in the 1990s, and has had considerable success since then. It may not be the popular thing to do right away, but it certainly can separate the factions into their respective corners, so to speak.<br /><br /> With the U.S. so bogged down here, with the troop surge generating mild if any successes, it is wise to look to a new direction. Senator Joseph Biden, D-Del, has been the chief sponsor of a plan to start a power-sharing partition plan in Iraq. It would de-centralize the government, putting more power in regional centers controlled by Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd forces. What is even more impressive is that the <a href="http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/5168150.html">U.S. Senate approved the non-binding resolution</a>. This is a powerful statement that the direction must change with respect to our plan in Iraq, even more than just removing troops, as senators have repeatedly suggested. I'm glad that someone is finally looking forward and in a "outside-the-box" fashion. Well done Senator Biden.<br /><br /> Of course, there are those who oppose it. The Iraqi central government condemned the resolution, with <a href="http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=25153&sectionid=351020201">prominent Iraqis</a> ca<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">lling it a "</span></span></span><span id="ctl00_ContentPlaceHolder1_lblBody" style=";font-family:Verdana;font-size:10;" ><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">flagrant interference in Iraq's internal affairs." This is to be expected; even though historical inequalities led to the government being formed, the people at its stead have the desire to keep the status quo going, even if it is not the best thing for its people. They do not want to see their own power diminished, so they will fight this plan however they can. The <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070930/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq">United States Embassy,</a> which is beholden to the executive branch, also decried the resolution. However, partition for them, and our President, would only look like some sort of "defeat" in their eyes, even if it might be a more proactive, stabilizing direction to move. They also have things to lose: prestige, votes, finances, party loyalty. All that petty politics seems to drive men to do great or horrid things.<br /><br /> I urge you all to read that resolution, and think honestly about the implications it has for the country, for our country, and for the future of stability in the Middle East. For isn't it better to have three smaller, stable countries operating and peaceful, than one larger quagmire of destruction and misery?<br /></span></span> </span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14735688.post-13431254285742148172007-09-22T06:59:00.000-07:002007-09-22T07:00:55.478-07:00Blackwater finding itself in hot waters<span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">There are always re-curing stories and anecdotes to demonstrate how the US government did not fully plan or execute the war in Iraq. From the blossoming of sectarian violence, to the sluggish pace of reconstruction, over and over it has been shown that we were woefully under prepared for what was to transpire in the region after we declared “Mission Accomplished” and fell Baghdad (as if that was really going to be a challenge). <br /><br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"> Now, a multitude of accusations have surfaced around the US security firm Blackwater. At first, it was “just” the shooting of Iraqi civilians in a roadside dispute last weekend. This was telling in itself, as the Iraqi government was at last able to form consensus … over how they wanted the firm stripped of its privileges and duties in the region and shipped home. With the public opinion swaying against these guns-for-hire, it is no surprise that the government focused its ire against them. It is easy to rid itself of a private firm, and score some badly needed points with the Iraqi people, than trying to but the US out of the country. However, the United States was unmoved by the pleas of injustice and multiple murder. Just a few days of suspension, and the firm was back in the streets, shuttling diplomats and other “important” persons across the region.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"> However, the dirt doesn’t stop there. Now, according to the Associated Press (AP), the firm has been accused in dealing arms on a black market to terrorist groups. There is sufficient evidence, the prosecutors’ estimate, for indictments to be handed down in connection with this. <br /><br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"> This is atrocious. We are represented by whom we hire to do our work for us. Ask any contractor and he’ll tell you that their reputation is on the line when they hire a sub-contractor do to work; should that person/group mess up, it reflects negatively on the main contractor, and the business as a whole. These security groups are, in effect, the employees of the US government. As such, we should hold them to a very strict standard, for their actions are a direct representation of our own beliefs and opinions on the matters at hand. If we allow them to get away with such activities, which clearly undermine our own objectives in the region (whatever those might be), then we send a clear message that we don’t’ care how we treat their people, their country, nor do we really care about their goals of reform and growth into a stable democracy. <br /><br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"> It is fairly clear to me what should happen with these firms. With the amount of shoddy work and questionable conduct that has been lined up, there should be an immediate suspension of their contract and duties in Iraq. But what of their jobs? You might ask, what will happen to the emissaries and ambassadors and other VIPs that need to be escorted around the country like blushing prom dates? Well, we recently added some 30,000 plus soldiers to the area… and it is widely known that we pay less for soldier’s wages than for these security personnel. I think we can handle that. It is our job as employer to make sure our employees are not sabotaging the company behind our backs. That wouldn’t stand in corporate America, and it shouldn’t stand with our government either.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14735688.post-21016688941253472352007-09-21T20:41:00.000-07:002007-09-30T16:21:57.650-07:00I'm Back ... for now<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Yet again, another pause in the uploading of articles and idle pondering about the world around us. I have begun graduate school at the University of Illinois, pursuing a degree in ethnobotany (at least an MS, very likely a PhD). I also disappeared from the country for three weeks into Central America, having a lot of fun and exploring the Mayan Ruins there.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">But I'm back, and looking forward to perusing the universal load of bullcrap that is paraded out for the public all the time. With the changing nature of grad school, I cannot promise these reports will come out with a regimented schedule, but I'll try to get something out when I can. And as always, feel free to read, make comments, and enjoy.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">My blogs up until now have ranged over a broad range of topics... environmental issues are very prevalent, with politics, the war (what blog doesn't deal with the war), education, and social issues coming in as well. I think the general format will continue for now at least. I might tighten it up in the future, but not right now.<br /><br />I want to thank my dear friend Ansley Weller, for reminding me about how and why I write, and for bringing me back into the blogging world. Thank you Ansley.<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14735688.post-12468199280500800002007-02-02T14:17:00.000-08:002007-02-02T14:27:08.909-08:00Kudos to Perry<span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">Finally, somebody has the right idea, and the balls to follow through with it. <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070202/ap_on_he_me/cervical_cancer;_ylt=AsaewOkbEqXiTcUXA.fW_0Ws0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--">Texas Governor Rick Perry</a> has issued an executive order mandating the use of the new human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine for all 6th grade girls in the state of Texas. In doing so, he sidesteps the conservative Texas legislature (who the late, great Molly Ivins called "The Ledge") and enters it directly into law.<br /><br />Of course, this has conservatives howling about how the vaccine promotes premarital sex and also interfering with how they desire to raise their children.<br /><br />Um... excuse me? This is a great breakthrough here. In a very rare case, we are able to provide a vaccine that can stop a form of cancer. CANCER. One of the top killers in this country right now. And we can stop it. This is the same as vaccinating against tetanus, polio, or smallpox. It has nothing to do with sex, and it certainly does not promote it to young girls. It is about saving lives.<br /><br />And as far as legislating how parents raise their kids, the same vaccine argument holds true. It is standard that children get a battery of disease-preventing innoculations. Hep B is required for many college entrances. Why should this one be any different?<br /><br />It galls me when these high-minded people are putting their own children at risk to cancer. Thank you Perry for taking the insightful step and bypassing all the hot air that blows around this subject. <br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14735688.post-58278732573681589202007-01-24T09:18:00.000-08:002007-01-24T09:33:48.552-08:00New Year, Same Words<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Let's take a look at the </span><a style="font-family: trebuchet ms;" href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070123-2.html">President's speech last night</a><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">, shall we?</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:85%;">"Extending hope and opportunity depends on a stable supply of energy that keeps America's economy running and America's environment clean. For too long our nation has been dependent on foreign oil. And this dependence leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and to terrorists -- who could cause huge disruptions of oil shipments, and raise the price of oil, and do great harm to our economy.</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br /><a style="font-family: trebuchet ms;" href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/images/20070123-2_d-0414-2-759v.html"><img src="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/images/20070123-2_d-0414-2-368v.jpg" alt="President George W. Bush delivers his State of the Union Address Tuesday, Jan. 23, 2007, at the U.S. Capitol. "For all of us in this room, there is no higher responsibility than to protect the people of this country from danger," said President George W. Bush. "Five years have come and gone since we saw the scenes and felt the sorrow that the terrorists can cause. We've had time to take stock of our situation. We've added many critical protections to guard the homeland. We know with certainty that the horrors of that September morning were just a glimpse of what the terrorists intend for us -- unless we stop them." White House photo by Eric Draper" align="right" border="0" height="373" width="255" /></a></span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:85%;"> It's in our vital interest to diversify America's energy supply -- the way forward is through technology. We must continue changing the way America generates electric power, by even greater use of clean coal technology, solar and wind energy, and clean, safe nuclear power. (Applause.) We need to press on with battery research for plug-in and hybrid vehicles, and expand the use of clean diesel vehicles and biodiesel fuel. (Applause.) We must continue investing in new methods of producing ethanol -- (applause) -- using everything from wood chips to grasses, to agricultural wastes.</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:85%;">We made a lot of progress, thanks to good policies here in Washington and the strong response of the market. And now even more dramatic advances are within reach. Tonight, I ask Congress to join me in pursuing a great goal. Let us build on the work we've done and reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent in the next 10 years. (Applause.) When we do that we will have cut our total imports by the equivalent of three-quarters of all the oil we now import from the Middle East.</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><span style="font-size:85%;">To reach this goal, we must increase the supply of alternative fuels, by setting a mandatory fuels standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017 -- and that is nearly five times the current target. (Applause.) At the same time, we need to reform and modernize fuel economy standards for cars the way we did for light trucks -- and conserve up to 8.5 billion more gallons of gasoline by 2017."Laudable statements. Certainly noble causes, for the pursuit of a cleaner environment and an independent energy source."</span><br /><br />But wait! What did our forward thinking </span><a style="font-family: trebuchet ms;" href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/">President say last year</a><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">?<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">"Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break this addiction is through technology. Since 2001, we have spent nearly $10 billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable alternative energy sources -- and we are on the threshold of incredible advances.</span></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:85%;">So tonight, I announce the Advanced Energy Initiative -- a 22-percent increase in clean-energy research -- at the Department of Energy, to push for breakthroughs in two vital areas. To change how we power our homes and offices, we will invest more in zero-emission coal-fired plants, revolutionary solar and wind technologies, and clean, safe nuclear energy. (Applause.)</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:85%;">We must also change how we power our automobiles. We will increase our research in better batteries for hybrid and electric cars, and in pollution-free cars that run on hydrogen. We'll also fund additional research in cutting-edge methods of producing ethanol, not just from corn, but from wood chips and stalks, or switch grass. Our goal is to make this new kind of ethanol practical and competitive within six years. (Applause.)</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /><br /></span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;font-size:85%;">Breakthroughs on this and other new technologies will help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025. (Applause.) By applying the talent and technology of America, this country can dramatically improve our environment, move beyond a petroleum-based economy, and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past. (Applause.)"</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">It is good to pay lip service to these goals, and to mention them certainly brings about awareness, which can help jump start the whole process. But merely stating them year after year is not enough; the President needs to back up his words with powerful legislation, bringin oil and car companies to heel as he moves forward in strengthening fuel economy standards, dramatically increasing funding into new research, as well as bringing more incentives to the table for commercial and residential units to move with new alternative fuel options, such as solar, wind, water, or other methods. He would do well to look to California, for their Million Solar initiative, and the new restrictions placed on automobiles' emissions. Only by actions can the words he speak come true, so he doesn't need to repeat himself ad naseum.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14735688.post-75262932790892976602007-01-19T13:14:00.000-08:002007-01-19T13:24:14.717-08:00Surging Stupidity<span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">I do not usually post twice in one day, not even twice in one week, but this caught my attention and I had to dig into it. I have not been terribly vocal on this site about the war in Iraq; those of you who know me know of my opinions of it, and that is fine. <br /><br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">However, today we get a </span><a style="font-family: trebuchet ms;" href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070119/ap_on_re_mi_ea/gates">new chapter in the troop "surge"</a><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"> planned by </span>POTUS<span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"> Bush and his new Secretary of Defense pal Gates. General George Casey claims that "I think it's probably going to be the summer, late summer, before you get to the point where people in Baghdad feel safe in their neighborhoods." Overall, there is the belief that the "surge" </span>troops<span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"> could be home by summertime.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">Ahem, excuse me? Did you say that these ~20,000 troops would be sticking around for only 5 or 6 months? And then magically everything winds up alright and they get to return to their homes? This smells similarly of former declarations of quick-fix, easy-winnable military operations. We're still in Afghanistan, we're still in Iraq, and I don't see those surging numbers coming home anytime soon. I hope they do, but I feel the administration has tried to give an artificial boost of hope into a situation where it would have been prudent to be pragmatic and realistic. </span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14735688.post-34827401381714805352007-01-19T09:27:00.000-08:002007-01-19T09:50:55.193-08:00Please Protect Me Myspace!!<span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"> There never seems to be a lack of articles proudly announcing that we are the most uncommonsensical people ever. It staggers me sometimes how people manage to function on a day to day basis without major help. Then again, I read the "Caution: the beverage you're about to enjoy is hot" warning on my hot chocolate, and I begin to understand. <br /><br /> Today's consternation arrives in the form of a lawsuit. The obscenely popular myspace.com website is facing several lawsuits from parents of the site's users. They are alleging that the website is not adequately protecting their kids from online predators. Why do they make these stunning allegations? According to one report on <a href="http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1580559,00.html">time.com</a>, "The lawyers who filed the latest lawsuits said the plaintiffs include a 15-year-old girl from Texas who was lured to a meeting, drugged and assaulted in 2006 by an adult MySpace user, who is currently serving a 10-year sentence in Texas after pleading guilty to sexual assault."<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"> Now hold on a damn minute. I agree that the Internet can be a vulnerable place, and it certainly has its share of perverts cruising sites looking for teens to chat with, look at, and think hideous thoughts about (though, it sounds like Congress is that sort of place too). And there should be some modicum of protection afforded younger members of the Internet, as they can be more vulnerable to that sort of online harassment. </span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">But teens who met and were drugged and raped by people they found at myspace? We're not talking about 7-year-olds who don't know any better. If you're 15, you're in high school by that point, and have almost certainly come in contact with various forms of harassment and entreaties. What the hell were they thinking? Who in their right minds agrees to meet someone privately first off after an Internet conversation? Meet at a coffee shop, meet at a bookstore, meet at a mall. Don't meet privately. Hello, is there no remains of common sense?<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"> And where in God's name were the parents during all this? I don't agree that parents should hover over their children's every move online, but some idle questions wouldn't hurt. And certainly if they were going to meet someone, questions should be posed to figure out who, when, where, and why.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"> I cannot imagine that the fault for this lies with the Internet company. Hemanshu Nigam, MySpace's chief security officer, said in a statement that Internet safety is a shared responsibility, requiring users to "apply common sense offline safety lessons in their online experiences and engage in open family dialogue." This hits it right on the head. All the new technology in the world these days works as a double-edged sword. It gives you more networking opportunities, ways of communicating with people you thought long gone. But at the same time it also opens you up to a new front of scrutiny, some of which may be unwelcome. What is the solution? Not to force a free company to over amp on their security measures. Instead, it should be an emphasis on personal responsibility and parental guidance that dictates how people act and react to a cyber social life. This is absurd people: take some responsibility for your dumb actions, don't pass the buck onto other people. </span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14735688.post-56453041008720843522007-01-04T08:30:00.000-08:002007-01-04T09:02:52.687-08:00How Long can Hatred Last?<span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">If a corporation starts to make a change in a positive direction, is it possible to still loath them? For years, I was one of the many who championed the anti-Wal-Mart cause. I decried their taking over of the traditional family run stores across small-town America. I seethed when I read some of their less than fair labor practices. I cheered when a town near me successfully blocked their insertion into the town lifestyle.<br /><br /><br />However, Wal-Mart has made some encouraging signs to rectify those stigmas. And one of the best ones I have seen so far is this: Wal-Mart is looking to jump into solar power in a big way. <a href="http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/hardware/0,39042972,61979238,00.htm">According to the article on ZDnet</a>, if completed as planned Wal-Mart will be generating 100MW of power in the next five years. To put that into perspective, Google's much heralded facility installation is supplying 1.6MW - smaller than 1/60th of the proposed Wal-Mart plan. I am a big fan of solar power. I think that, with all the rooftop acrage in this country (and world), there is enough space to harness vast amounts of energy. It is just sitting there, waiting to be tapped. And for Wal-Mart, a former hated enemy, to take up the forefront of this cause, is good news, but a bit puzzling as well. <br /><br />These people had been the object of so much vitriol from environmentalists, urban planners, labor groups, and consumer groups, that perhaps now they are trying to turn the tide. Are they doing it to lessen the negative publicity that always surrounds them? That's part of it, no doubt. But that cannot be all of it. In October of last year, Wal-Mart president and CEO Lee Scott spoke on Wal-Mart's short-term goals, including a <a href="http://www.walmartstores.com/Files/21st%20Century%20Leadership.pdf">commitment to invest $500 million</a> a year in energy efficiency and technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.<br /><br />Has Wal-Mart been the enemy? Yes. But is it more important that they are starting to change and do the right thing? Absolutely.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14735688.post-13401564482694481282006-12-22T10:10:00.000-08:002006-12-22T10:26:48.392-08:00Jack Valenti doesn't get it<span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">In an <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20061221/cm_usatoday/doesthenextgenerationvaluethesacrificeofwar">op-ed piece in Thursday's USAToday</a>, Jack Valenti decries the lack of appreciation that the younger generation possesses for the sacrifices of our soldiers in battle. He says, "watching [</span><span style="font-style: italic; font-family: trebuchet ms;">Flags of Our Fathers</span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">, the new Iwo Jima movie by Clint Eastwood], watching ordinary young men performing extraordinary feats of heroism, broke my heart. They put to hazard their own lives not to win medals, but because their country was in danger. Why, then, a casual indifference to this story by so many young people? Maybe it's because we have been so benumbed by war, particularly this Iraq war, and because so few youngsters have worn a uniform. A movie about a battle a half a century ago carries no umbilical connection to them. That's understandable. But it ought not to be."<br /><br />Jack's lamentation that the younger generation lives with this indifference is in a crucial application of the words he chose: "their country was in danger." Yes, in WWII, the USA was in danger from the Axis powers, threatened by both the Nazis from the Atlantic and the rising Japan empire at the Pacific. However, there is nothing dangerous about the wars we wage today. Iraq did not pose a danger to the United States. The UN inspectors found nothing in the way of weapons of mass destruction, and despite occupying the country for over three years now, we similarly have found no evidence to suggest Sadam was an imminent threat to our country's survival and prosperity. <br /><br />Thus, to pour billions of dollars, thousands of deaths of our service men and women, and all the diplomatic shame that this war has incurred upon us, is it any wonder that the average 20-something American doubts the valor of battlefield feats? This was not a war in which we can look to and be proud of our involvement, which is a key distinction between Gulf War II and WWII. We had reason to be proud of our actions in Europe and Asia. We were securing our future, while liberating allies who were at the mercy of a Fascist who wanted to rule the world. Those were noble goals. Iraq was removing a second-rate despot, and then plunging the country into confusion and rebellion. <br /><br />There should always be respect paid to those people who lay down their lives in the line of service, even if we disagree with why they are there in the first place. And there is no doubt that the feats performed by the generations who fought in the world wars deserve a place of honor and respect in our hearts, for they worked to preserve liberty at home and abroad. But with the quagmire that we are finding ourselves in with respect to Iraq (not to mention Afghanistan), it should prove no suprise that impressionable people are having their glasses tinted in a way that strikes against the gung-ho military viewpoint carried by some previous generations. That is not to say we don't respect people in service. Far from it. It means we demand more from our armed forces than rushing into a situation guns blazing. Modern warfare, especially at the outset, requires planning, reconstruction, diplomacy. This is not the 40s, this is the 21st century. Update our military accordingly.<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14735688.post-47847704011399343822006-12-20T13:43:00.000-08:002006-12-20T14:07:41.924-08:00Creating jobs from Smart Energy Policy<span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">Some choice pieces from an </span><a style="font-family: trebuchet ms;" href="http://www.themountainmail.com/main.asp?SectionID=7&SubSectionID=7&ArticleID=9797">opinion piece by Carl Pope</a><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"><span style="font-style: italic;">At the moment, America lacks any real plan for bringing smart energy solutions into the mainstream, and it's missing out on major job opportunities as a result. Consider the manufacturing of wind turbines as just one telling example. Iron ore mined in northern Minnesota gets shipped abroad to make steel. Danish, German, and Spanish companies then use that steel to make wind turbines. These turbines are then shipped back to the United States on boats through the Great Lakes to Duluth, where they are placed on trucks and hauled to Iowa and other states with great wind resources. America provides the raw material and pays for the finished product but gets almost none of the economic benefit, foregoing increasingly dear manufacturing jobs. As if that isn't enough, NASA invented the technology itself.</span><br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">Hmm, strange how capitalism can come back and bite you in the ass, eh? Free markets can indeed strip the championing nation of its wealth. But if we were to embrace the future of energy rather than hide behind the slick curtain that will prevent us from maintaining our leadership in the world, then we are only to blame.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"><span style="font-style: italic;">America does not have a national plan that requires utilities to produce any power with renewable energy, but it could. And there's no reason why the United States couldn't decide to power 10 million homes with solar roofing. To be most effective, such policies ought to be matched with incentives and publicly assisted financing to get domestic manufacturers on their feet. In fact, there are many, many things this country could be doing to create a home-grown, renewable energy economy. It's been too busy giving subsidies to oil companies to do most of them.</span><br />I would second the call placed by Carl to generally plan for our nation's energy future. Do so, and invest the money here, in research and development, manufacturing, sales, and maintenance, and you will create a hybrid industry from the energy/engineering/environmental sectors which will have a market niche and room to grow. There are some states that have already started playing this game.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"><span style="font-style: italic;">It's no coincidence that California has set a goal of producing 20 percent of its energy from renewable sources, and that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has an ambitious initiative aimed at putting solar power on a million roofs in the Golden State in the next 10 years. The state also makes a point of investing its state pension funds in companies that push the green envelope. Earlier this year, Nanosolar, which has seed money from Google executives, announced that it would build the world's largest solar manufacturing facility near San Francisco, creating several hundred new jobs in the process. </span><br />If only the rest of the nation could be on board. As a whole, the federal government could wield a huge power, should they chose to, and spark this green revolution off in a positive direction. Here's hoping the tide turns soon.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14735688.post-1100839314644770282006-11-28T11:19:00.000-08:002006-11-28T11:30:11.739-08:00Carbon Offset<span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">A <span onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)" class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">disturbing</span> trend is developing in the industrial world: that of the business of <span style="font-style: italic;">carbon offset</span>. In theory, you pay a company a certain amount of money, who then invest it in areas where carbon is conserved (like wind farms, buying forest reserves, supporting solar panel technology). The amount you pay is calculated based on how much "carbon" you waste each year, taking into account the car you drive, your heating and air conditioning bill, and other environmental factors. This is a growing business, according to NPR, who <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6548098&ft=1&f=1003">highlighted it on their morning talk show</a>.<br /><br />However, this brings up several issues regarding our consumption in modern society. Perhaps investing in wind farms helps to offset our SUV driving, but does it really encourage saving and conservation, which should be at the head of any greenhouse gas emission solution? I don't think so. One of the people that <span onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)" class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Matrin</span> <span onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)" class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Kaste</span> interviewed for his report hit it right on the head: it is very much akin to the indulgences sold by the Church before the Reformation. The theory goes, "pay up for your sins, and you'll be <span onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)" class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">guaranteed</span> a clean slate." </span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">It is easy to pay off $80 or so a year and drive your Ford Excursion like there was no tomorrow. But that is not the point of trying to be a better consumer and global citizen. While it might prompt some people to think about their "eco-footprint," it also has the danger of giving leeway to those who should be thinking about it the most. Being able to pay off your carbon debt, so to speak, could encourage you to be <span style="font-style: italic;">more </span>carless about your consumption patterns, with the expectation that you can just pay it off later and be free and clear. That is dangerous thinking. <br /><br />And the effect is small, very local. <span onclick="BLOG_clickHandler(this)" class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Kaste</span> notes that it would take close to $10billion a year for the US to get to 1990 levels of carbon emissions. People are just not shelling out that amount of money, and there is also a limit to how many forests you can buy and protect, how many wind farms can be created in one year (or over a particular area). And it is one thing to invest in wind farms, but people or businesses also have to sign up to use the greener energy that the farms are producing. Buying into the farm is only half of the equation; without someone using it, it is a futile gesture. <br /><br />While this is an ingenious way of approaching the problem, and this sort of outside-the-box thinking should be encouraged, it should not delude us from the real goal of this movement: to reduce our consumption in order to ensure a healthier planet for the future. There is no buying our way out of that one, it only comes via hard work. <br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14735688.post-79519784865929072412006-11-16T13:35:00.000-08:002006-11-16T13:44:41.220-08:00John Glen said what?<span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">I received an email recently recounting some statements regarding Iraq and the War on Terror (btw, always put Terror in capitals... otherwise the Terrorists win). They were reported to come from John Glen, US Senator and former NASA astronaut and pilot. Whether or not they are actually from him, I found the quotes hilariously wrong in a number of ways. They represented an obtuse point of view that so often is perpetuated without critical thought. Some of my rebuttals are posted here, along with the comments in thier entirety. The original comment is in italics; my thoughts are in regular text.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms; font-style: italic;">When some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war, state the following:<br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms; font-style: italic;">a. FDR led us into World War II.<br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms; font-style: italic;">b. Germany never attacked us; Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost, </span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms; font-style: italic;">an average of 112,500 per year.<br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> --></span>There is substantial evidence that the two sides, Japan and Germany, were collaborating on how to divide the world between them. There was a fair amount of communication going on, even if there was no explicit cooperation. And while Germany never formally declared war on the USA, before our entrance into the war there were numerous attacks on civilian ships and supply vessels in the Atlantic that today would garner the term “terrorist.” These attacks were against the United States, and it is wrong to say that Germany never attacked us.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">1939 </span>- Sept 3 . Submarine U-30 torpedoes British passenger liner Athenia without warning in the belief that she is an armed merchant cruiser; 28 American citizens are among the dead.<br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"> Sep 10. U.S. freighter Wacosta, bound from Scotland to New York is stopped by German submarine for three hours.<br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">1941 </span>- Jan 30. Germany announces that ships of any nationality bringing aid to Great Britain will be torpedoed.<br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"> May 21. Unarmed U.S. freighter Robin Moor, en route to South Africa and Mozambique, is stopped and sunk by German submarine U-69 (torpedo and gunfire) about 700 miles off the west coast of Africa. First American merchantman sunk by a U-boat in World War II. Crew given food and directions by submarine.</span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"><br /> Sep 7 . SS Steel Seafarer bombed and sunk in Red Sea.<br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"> Oct 17. Kearney (DD-432) escorting a convoy was attacked by U-boat off the coast of Iceland with 11 killed.<br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"> Oct 19. Unarmed U.S. freighter Lehigh is torpedoed and sunk by German submarine U-126 off Freetown, Sierra Leone.<br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"> Oct 28. Oiler Salinas (AO-19), in convoy ON 28, is torpedoed by German submarine U-106 about 700 miles east of Newfoundland.<br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"> Oct 31. Reuben James (DD-245), an older destroyer on convoy duty west of Iceland, was sunk by U-boat with loss of 115 men.<br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"> Oct 31. DuPont (DD-152) is attacked by U-boat, but missed.<br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"> Dec 2 . German submarine U-43 torpedoes and sinks unarmed U.S. tanker Astral and her 37 man crew.<br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"> Dec 3 . Unarmed U.S. freighter Sagadahoc is torpedoed and sunk by German submarine U-124 in South Atlantic.<br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"></span><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.ww2pacific.com/bellacts.html"><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">Information gratefully found at http://www.ww2pacific.com/bellacts.html</span></span></a><br /><br /><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"> Not attacked eh????</span></div><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"></span></div><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms; font-style: italic;">c. Truman finished that war and started one in Korea. North Korea never attacked us. </span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms; font-style: italic;">From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost an average of 18,334 per year.<br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms; font-style: italic;">d John F. Kennedy started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.<br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms; font-style: italic;">e. Johnson turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost, </span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms; font-style: italic;">an average of 5,800 per year.<br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> --></span>The whole of the Cold War can be summed up in one word: mistake. Our strategy was mistaken, our motivation was incorrect, our reasoning flawed. The projections we created never panned out. I think it is a common belief now that our involvement in Vietnam was not warranted, undesired by the Vietnamese, and ultimately was a waste of time.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms; font-style: italic;">f. Clinton went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us.<br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> --></span>There was genocide happening on a rather large scale. It was evident that this needed to be done to help pacify the situation. (As we should be considering doing in Darfur, Sudan right now.) The UN swiftly came into the situation, as did NATO, to help negotiate a long-standing peace-keeping mission. I don’t see NATO or the UN offering to come in and aid in “peace-keeping” in Iraq. Also, Bush 41 was very hesitant to help the Kurds out, when the gassing was going on. If we had gone in then, with that clearly defined mission of helping stop a genocide, we would have garnered more support around the world. A decade late does not help your image. <br /><br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms; font-style: italic;">He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.<br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> --></span>The history of Osama bin Laden is large and varied. Yes, Clinton missed an opportunity to get him early on. But then again, it was the Reagan era that first trained and equipped this man (not entirely unlike Hussein himself), so there is plenty of blame to go around.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms; font-style: italic;">g. In the years since terrorists attacked us , President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and, North</span><br /><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms; font-style: italic;">Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.<br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> --></span>"Liberated" is such a loose term. Afghanistan is still without some basic necessities, and there are substantiated reports that the Taliban is becoming stronger, bolder in the South and Eastern provinces. The chaos that is engulfing Iraq would hardly be called a “liberated” area of the world. The inspectors, while a good step forward, have hardly been able to arrest the progress that Iran and N. Korea have made in their nuclear programs. Bush lamblasted UN inspectors in 2002 and 2003 when making the decision to invade Iraq. Does he hope now that they will be more effective in even more extreme countries?</span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"><br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">Here are links to very recent articles detailing the increase in attacks by Taliban.<br /></span></span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"><a href="http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SP216676.htm">http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SP216676.htm</a><br /></span></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/15/AR2006111501622.html"><span style="font-size:85%;">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/15/AR2006111501622.html</span></a><br /><br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms; font-style: italic;">The Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking. But It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation.<br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> --></span>Yes, however you must also take into account the severity of casualties that have resulted from each decision. The Branch Davidian compound was a stand-off, where the lives of 27 children were weighed against the benefits of running in, guns blazing. There was a large effort to try and negotiate a way out of that situation before resorting to combat methods. It was not war. The US went into Iraq without the regard for the Iraqi army or civilians that the FBI displayed when trying to release the Davidians at the compound. The FBI ended up killing 76 Davidian members, including their leader. Since January 2005, over 19,000 Iraqi civilians have died. The comparison is erroneous. </span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14735688.post-61923622681407469152006-11-15T11:29:00.000-08:002006-11-15T13:15:57.362-08:00Good news on Planet: Forestation<span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">There is a spot of bright news on the horizon. A recent report put out by the US National Academy of Sciences mentions that forests are actually being maintained in many parts of the world, if not actually increasing. In the last 15 years, the United States and China have shown the greatest gain in forest coverage. Even moreso, it shows a general trend of countries around the world of transitioning to reforestation rather than deforestation.<br /></span><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Below is a picture from the article. The red line shows a neutral area+density forest volume; countries above that line are gaining forest volume and mass; those below are losing it.<br /></span><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/6472/1798/1600/Reforestation%20picture.2.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/6472/1798/400/Reforestation%20picture.0.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">This is definitely positive news. However, i would counsel that there remains an issue with logging large, old-growth forest. These venerable trees form the backbone of an ecosystem; they harbor the most water, possess the greatest surface area for CO2 reductions, and anchor the soil the greatest against erosion and other degredation. These trees still need protection from deforestation.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">But, allow yourself a smile at this good news, which is so rare in the arena of environmental protection.</span><br /><br /><a style="font-family: trebuchet ms;" href="http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=38973&newsdate=14-Nov-2006">Here is an article at Planet Ark about the report.</a><br /><a style="font-family: trebuchet ms;" href="http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/0608343103/DC1?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=reforestation&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT">Here is the report in its entirety from PNAS.</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14735688.post-34458462249463871672006-11-13T11:21:00.000-08:002006-11-13T11:43:30.052-08:00UNSF<span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">There has been a lot of discussion about the ineffectiveness of the UN. That is the primary criticism coming from conservatives, that the UN talks and talks and makes resolutions and does not have the backbone to enforce them, instead relying on member states to provide the muscle for any operation the UN has resolved is necessary. There is an easy way to get around that. Introducing: The United Nations Strike Force.<br /><br />The United Nations Strike Force (UNSF) would be responsible for the "first response" of any UN legislation that requires military action. In such areas as Darfur, Bosnia, and anywhere around the world where the UN has decided it necessary to step in and take a side for world peace and prosperity. It is a small, elite military unit (comparable to the Navy Seals, Army Rangers, Green Barets, etc.) that operate under the expressed juristiction of the UN. It is a small but well-equiped unit, with all the latest in warfare technology. A hybrid force of aerial, sea-based, and land forces that could work together in a fast-paced, high risk environment. The actual size of the unit would depend on the mission involved and the particulars of the creation of the unit by the UN, but I would imagine somewhere on the order of 10,000-20,000. Obviously some parts of a military would have to be foregone (aircraft carriers, for instance, require too many personnel to be operated effectively), but they could be surmounted by innovations in technology and planning (using the Joint Strike Fighter would enable vertical take-offs, putting these jets on smaller ships without the usual crew needed on a carrier).<br /><br />The personnel involved would come from the member nations' militaries. However, they would be on a multi-year loan from their country to the UN. While they are serving the UN, they are UN Soldiers, not American/Canadian/French/etc. soldiers helping with a UN effort. Their loyalties lie with protecting the UN Charter and the decisions of the Security Council. They are UN Soldiers while they are there. The council would, of course, do their best to avoid sending troops to areas of the world where there would be a conflict of interest. So, any Muslim troops would not have been forced to fight against Saddam Hussein (but if they wanted to, no problem). <br /><br />This force would not be the size of a regular standing army, and once they had cleared the way, removed major obstacles, then regular, member-sponsored peacekeepers would take their place. This would be a dangerous position to hold, as the soldiers would be working in some very hostile environments against a myriad of enemies. But they would be defending global peace, freedom, and rights, and that certainly is a just cause to be working towards.<br /><br />Perhaps the most important part of this is that it would force countries to think twice before defying the UN's resolutions in the future. No longer could they scoff at sanctions, demands for cessation of activities, requests for entry to genocidal areas. For the UN would have a powerful muscle to strike with, and force them to capitulate to the UN. Used correctly, this could be a good tool to wrangle with despots the world over, who know that they can blow off the UN and not have to face serious consequences. That would change, and we could work quickly and effectively towards limiting conflict and establishing peace across the globe.<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14735688.post-44355615301550688302006-11-08T11:30:00.000-08:002006-11-08T11:45:27.495-08:00Midterms for all<span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"> It is quite amazing how these elections can reverberate around the world, and it reinforces how important American politics and policies are to the rest of the global population. With the take-back of the House (and perhaps the Senate... still seeing how a couple races end), the Democrats have offered a lot of hope to a great number of people. <br /><span style="font-size:78%;"> </span><br /></span> <a style="font-family: trebuchet ms;" href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061108/ap_on_el_ge/eln_election_mideast_view">In the Middle East</a><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">, where in pro-Western Jordan, a newspaper editor said many Arabs "are delighted that the American voters have at least disassociated themselves from [President Bush's] dangerous policies." <br /><span style="font-size:78%;"> </span><br /></span> <a style="font-family: trebuchet ms;" href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061108/ap_on_sc/climate_conference">At the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP)</a><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">, some of the participants at a climate conference pointed to the midterm elections as a sign that positive changes might come about in the U.S.'s environmental attitude. "President Bush still has two more years in office so it's very unlikely that the U.S. negotiating posture will change," said Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists. He added that the fact that Democrats, many of whom support emissions caps, took control of the House means climate and energy issues will be prominent in the 2008 presidential campaign.</span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"><span style="font-size:78%;"> </span></span><br /><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">It also has highlighted the need for a strong bipartisan (damn I hate that word; it just sounds like politician-speak for elections) work to keep the influence of America strong. Some around the globe worry that a rift in the power scheme of our legislature, coupled with a lame-duck second-term president might stall progress on international issues by weakening much-needed American influence. </span><a style="font-family: trebuchet ms;" href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061108/ap_on_el_ge/eln_election_world_view"> In other parts of the world</a><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">:</span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"><span style="font-size:78%;"> </span></span><br /><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">"We hope American foreign policy will change and that living conditions in Iraq will improve," said 48-year-old engineer Suheil Jabar, a Shiite Muslim in Baghdad.</span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"><span style="font-size:78%;"> </span></span><br /><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">In Copenhagen, Denmark, 35-year-old Jens Langfeldt said he did not know much about the midterm elections but was opposed to Bush's values. He referred to the president as "that cowboy."</span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"></span><br /><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"><span style="font-size:78%;"> </span></span><br /><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">In Sri Lanka, some said they hoped the rebuke would force Bush to abandon a unilateral approach to global issues.</span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"><br /><br /></span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">Only time will tell if the Dems can capitalize on their success and translate it into real domestic and international policy development. They have been given a chance to prove that they are different, along with a time-line: 2 years to show something, or forget about the Presidency in 2008. Time to get moving.</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14735688.post-3016150227573176772006-11-08T11:28:00.000-08:002006-11-08T11:29:30.471-08:00apologize for the delay<span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">Hey everyone, I'm sorry for the lengthy delay in new postings. My personal life has taken some complicated turns, with the possibility of a return to academic life via graduate school, a lot of time has been spent prepping applications and the like. But never fear, I will do my best to keep on with this site, as there are tons of ideas that have been floating through my head and I want to get them down. <br /><br />~~Josh<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14735688.post-58780426212516161932006-09-07T21:45:00.000-07:002006-09-07T22:26:22.517-07:00Green CEOs<span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">Steven Milloy of foxnews.com wants you to believe that being a CEO in favor of green business is bad for business. <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,212843,00.html">In his most recent column</a>, he gives three "examples" of how CEOs of major companies, by trying to move in a greener route, have sparked a decline in their own company's future value. He picks the specious cases of Ford, British Petroleum, and the upcoming "crisis" in General Electric. However, if you read what he has to write, he is simply not making any sense. <br /><br />Ford's choice of CEO may have not been the wisest choice in the world, but the 5-year reign of Bill Ford did not have the disasterous effect that Millor wants you to believe. His reasoning is that, since Bill actively sought to turn his company down a greener road, the 2/3 loss of stock value that the company has endured is his fault. Instead, it was a company's reliance on trucks and SUVS - which consume huge amounts of gas - that dragged them down, and their unwillingness to change. Look at Ford's compatriot, General Motors. A company similarly laden down with the same burdens, has not had an environmentalist at the helm but still has managed to shed the majority of its value. In stark contrast, Toyota got on board the green vehicle bus very early, and is currently reaping in the benefits from it (note: here in California the waiting list for a Prius was, at one point, 7 months... how many cars would you willingly pay for in advance, and then wait 7 months for it to be delivered? not many). Honda is also there, and they have a good corner on the solar panel manufacturring market to bolster them up. So it was not these last 5 years that have doomed Ford, it has been decades of negligence and unwillingness to act or recognize changes down the road.<br /><br />Negligence reminds me of Milloy's comments about BP's CEO Lord John Browne. Milloy states that, while Browne is trying to turn a new leaf in the company's long and sometimes turbid history, he has neglected "core business needs and has </span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;" id="intelliTXT">given the company a black-eye." What is evidence for this accusation? "</span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;" id="intelliTXT">A March 2005 explosion at BP’s Texas City, Texas, refinery complex killed 15 workers and injured many more. Poor maintenance at BP’s Alaskan oil pipeline caused the largest-ever oil spill on the North Slope in March 2006. A BP oil rig damaged by Hurricane Katrina still leaks one year later." Now the pipeline corrosion is a condition that builds up over years, if not decades, making recent decisions by the CEO hardly relevant. Even more important, the <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/15402407.htm">pipeline is soon to be back online</a>,by BP's estimates. Explosions and hurricanes, while unfortunate, happen, at great cost to lives, money, and the environment. But these are pitfalls in any company, and freak acts like those do not necessarily reflect upon the CEO in question. Instad, trying to push BP into a new generation of companies working with alternative fuels, helping California's governor work with a new global-warming initiative, and work with partners like Greenpeace are constructive steps that more companies should take.<br /><br />The truth of the matter is that green companies are starting to turn a profit, and make a lot of sense. <a href="http://www.forbes.com/investmentnewsletters/2004/02/24/cz_jr_0224soapbox.html">Forbes magazine opines</a>, "</span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;" class="mainarttxt">Evidence is mounting that what is good for the environment is also good for the price of a company's stock. Contrary to the widely accepted belief that environmental regulations are a drain on profitability, research demonstrates that being environmentally effective can add value to a company, and potentially benefit its shareholders.</span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;"> </span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;" class="mainarttxt">By taking advantage of environmental opportunities, companies can gain a competitive advantage over their peers through cost reductions, quality improvements, increased profitability and access to new and growing markets. Environmentally responsible companies also have less risk of environmental liability, which could have a major impact on future stock prices." And that was two years ago, before a lot of green businesses that exist today are even in place.<br /><br />According to the <a href="http://www.csrwire.com/article.cgi/5008.html">Carbon Disclosure Project</a>, "</span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">More than 70 percent of the world's largest 500 companies (FT 500) are now addressing climate change in their corporate reporting, according to the Carbon Disclosure Project. In addition, 90 percent of those companies flagged climate change as posing commercial risks and/or opportunities to their business." </span><span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;" class="mainarttxt">Toyota's hybrid cars have certainly been a boost for that company, as mentioned above. Portfolio 21's top 10 green companies for 2005 returned anywhere from 52% to 120%, hardly shabby growth by any metric.<br /><br />Milloy's comments are not merely obtuse, but blatantly misleading. He chooses such abominable examples to base his case around that it could be hardly considered journalism. As I have shown, most of his accusations are not the result of one man's actions, as those take longer to matriculate in a large corporate atmosphere. Instead, CEOs who think green and act green should be encouraged to continue what they are doing, for it will benefit their shareholders, their customers, and society in general. Milloy should stop pandering and slandering and write about something about which he actually understands.<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14735688.post-5609704133837445212006-09-06T13:39:00.000-07:002006-09-06T14:02:33.222-07:00The Rag Rant<span style="font-family: trebuchet ms;">How destructive, the petty diversions of our life. Americans are being destroyed by consumption, and not the Violetta type. Our TV watching is approaching a third of our lives (up to an average of 8.2 hours/day/household, according to Time Magazine), and we continually fill our waking existence with intellectual tripe. Celebrity marriages, star gossip, fashion obsession. Are these items that will help you improve your lives? Will knowing that Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes' baby looks like (<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060830/od_afp/afpentertainmentusarts_060830212453">even getting a glimpse of her bronzed shit</a>) help you in your own marriage? Improve your work life? Become healthier, wiser, a more active citizen in this country?<br /><br />No, they will not. Instead, these trivialities are distractions from your life. While entertainment is certainly not looked down upon, to spend hours of television programming, newspaper print space, and vast amounts of time in your own life ingesting, memorizing, prioritizing these tidbits is unconscionable. Why do we care? What relevance does this have to our own selves? Nada. Rather, we use these pieces of pop culture to remove us from our own reality, to escape from the difficult thoughts that lie with our own lives and the decisions that need to be made regarding our future. It is easier to think about Brangelina than about the impeding death of Social Security; Jessica Simpson's new fling is more fun to contemplate than trade deficits or poor education or the illegal immigrant debacle.<br /><br />Hollywood will not be denied; and in their cunning they have isolated ourselves from our own rational brains, fractionated off a portion of it in order to serve no particular useful purpose. And we have swallowed, as a society, hook, line, and sinker. We buy trashy magazines, watch the tabloid shows, participate in useless water-cooler tirades and gossip trading, rather than trying to use those neurons, use that time, use those contacts to try and actually do something constructive. Heaven forbid that we attempt to improve our lives, indulge in our own artistic side, try to construct a more perfect union. We face serious issues, and to sit around diddling our lives away on such star-studded bullshit is beyond me, and should be beyond us. Put down <span style="font-style: italic;">People</span>. It is not about you, it is not for you, it exists merely to waste your money and time. </span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14735688.post-24681144922030058082006-08-23T23:49:00.000-07:002006-08-23T23:51:16.484-07:00And while you’re at it, you might want to look under your bed too…<span style="font-size:100%;"><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"> There is nothing worse than playing boogey-man politics. And, unfortunately, September 11, 2001 gave this administration the greatest boogey-man imaginable: secretive, exotic, filled with unmitigated hate, powerful, able to strike and disappear in a second, only to reappear months or years later. With the joint attacks on that day, the united states launched its “war on terrorism” to safeguard America in this vast, chaotic world we live in. And if you listen to this administration, they would trumpet the fact that there has been so significant repeat of the terrorist acts since 9/11. However, they fail to mention that in the 200 years before that infamous date there had also been no significant terrorist attack. Quite a track record they’re developing.</span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><br /><br />But they do not want you to know that. They do not want you to focus on where your jobs are going, why your children are not as educated as Chinese children, why our environment is degrading, why we’re in debt, fat, overworked and underpaid. No, no, no, those are questions for another time. BUT LOOK!! The evil terrorists are at it again! You must vote for us because only we can keep you safe! And if we are not super, 1000% vigilant (damn fuzzy math), then they will get us. We need to “fight them there, or we fight them in the supermarkets and streets here,” according to Rep. Curt Weldon (R-PA) on CNN.</span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><br /><br />This is not to discount the fact that there are terrorists out there, bad ones (speaking of the war on terror, how is Bin Laden doing?). But they are hyperboleed up to the highest level as if our very next breath is tainted with their chemicals, their microbes, unless our valiant Republican party is at the helm to stop them.<br /><br />E</span><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">very time they are worried that they will lose an election (and you know who I mean when I say “they”), they pull out their supposed trump card of terrorism. Ratcheting it up to scare us and make our hands shake at the ballot box, clicking “Republican so-and-so” just so we feel reassured that we’re safe again, with them in power. Puhhhlease. I can only hope that we are not as easily deluded as they think we are. We outgrew monsters in our closets when we were 8 years old.</span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14735688.post-1155539013809520762006-08-14T00:01:00.000-07:002006-08-14T00:03:33.826-07:00I cannot believe...<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-family: times new roman;"> It never ceases to amaze me how people can behave like Neanderthals sometimes. <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060814/ap_on_el_st_lo/muslim_candidate_protest">This story out of Maryland</a> demonstrates that principle clearly. A man, deciding to protest a Muslim candidate to the state’s House of Delegates, has staged a one-man “protest” outside of the candidate’s home, wearing a shirt that says, “Islam Sucks.” His reasoning for his protest? “I had heard that Muslims were generally intolerant of views other than their own, and so I thought I would put it to the test.” By insulting the person? By insulting his personal religion? Who would not be tempted to strike back, talk back, against such statements? The man has been warned of being prosecuted for trespassing. However, if this man were to happen to have a sign saying “Judaism Sucks” in front of a Jewish candidate’s house, you had better believe he’d be slapped with more than just trespassing. Hate crimes, bigotry, all sorts of labels would be associated with him. But since it is a Muslim candidate, then he’s only trespassing. To his credit, the candidate has not dignified the man with a response, saying there is nothing constructive about his dialogue. What true words!<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family: times new roman;">The double-standard that is appearing, and the whole culture which resides behind this single man’s attitude is sickening. What sweeping ignorance has paved his path to arrive at this candidate’s front door. Such wide, blunt brushes he paints other cultures with. We paint cultures with. I thought as a nation we had progressed beyond such thing. We should be ashamed that this happens here in our country of the free. And do not bring to me the argument that it is free speech. The man himself defends his actions, saying they are not hateful, merely expressing an opinion. But the cultural connotations of his words transcend mere opinions into the realm of hate-driven expressions.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-family: times new roman;">If I had chose a person I’d want as a neighbor, a fellow citizen, my decision would rest solely with the Muslim, rather than allow such a blunt-minded hypocrite to share my country with. This man repulses me to my core.</span><br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1